If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Hopefully so. But that was not the case in CK1, so it depends on what is hardcoded and what is left in the text files.

Which was a really bad move, since no one likes hardcoding something that could only benefit the playerbase by not being so (the ones who don't care won't be affected at all, it only really, really annoys people who do want to). Got anything to say about it, Paradox? I know it's been said it's going to be "very modifiable" in the past, so certainly that must include something of the sort?

No sweat people. It's the clausewitz engine. I am quite confident that we can draw parallels between Rome, Sengoku and CK II. It's definitely more moddable than CK1. Not only that, but if they are planning expansions making pagans and muslims playable (even polygamy and other features) then they are already doing design decisions to make it as painless as possible. If not for modders, then for themselves (but PI have proven to love modders). I reckon all this fuss is for nothing.

I'm not really thinking it's hardcoded, it'd just be nice to have official confirmation it isn't.

Which was a really bad move, since no one likes hardcoding something that could only benefit the playerbase by not being so (the ones who don't care won't be affected at all, it only really, really annoys people who do want to). Got anything to say about it, Paradox? I know it's been said it's going to be "very modifiable" in the past, so certainly that must include something of the sort?

I wish that there were exceptions for dynasties that belong to more than one religious group, but not likely to happen. On the same line of thinking, will Christians be able to inherit non-Christian realms and vice versa? There could be laws to govern such things, and I hope that non-Christian succession laws are worked out to reflect this. In CK1, I was able to marry my Iberian Christians to Moorish noblewomen and so inherit in some cases entire emirates.

This happens far too much in DV. AI Christian realms that are successful crusaders always end up being inherited by a moslem. Infidels shouldn't be able to inherit, unless they convert. The Kingdom of Sicily should stay catholic when Theodoros de Hauteville (Greek Moslem) inherits. Either he converts as part of the inheritance deal, or he is excluded from the succession. Realms switched between Protestant and Catholic as a result of inheritance in the EU period, but not between Moslem and Christian in the crusade period.

This happens far too much in DV. AI Christian realms that are successful crusaders always end up being inherited by a moslem. Infidels shouldn't be able to inherit, unless they convert. The Kingdom of Sicily should stay catholic when Theodoros de Hauteville (Greek Moslem) inherits. Either he converts as part of the inheritance deal, or he is excluded from the succession. Realms switched between Protestant and Catholic as a result of inheritance in the EU period, but not between Moslem and Christian in the crusade period.

It would be nice to see this as an available law. It makes no sense when compared to history. Even converts were sometimes suspect, and Christian kings in places like Sicily could take on Muslim practices (like keeping a harem), but it should not be allowable for a non-Christian to inherit a Christian realm, under normal circumstances. And Muslim succession laws should be such that it would prevent the inheritance of Muslim realms by non-Muslims. I don't know enough about northern European pagans to comment on Christian-pagan inheritances.

Intermarriage across religious groups should be allowed under some circumstances, though not encouraged. IIRC Muslim women cannot marry non-Muslim men, though the opposite is not true, but under current canon law "mixed marriages" are allowable, provided the children are raised Christian (I don't know if that was the case in the medieval era). But there were some cases of Christian noblewomen marrying Muslim men for diplomatic reasons. I seem to remember one of the early Ottoman sultans marrying a Byzantine princess--and claiming the right of succession for his children to the Byzantine throne, while many Ottoman sultans married enslaved Christian women, but that is a different case (or a rare event--your daughter is captured in a raid and becomes a wife to a Muslim ruler...).

1. Sometimes muslims would inherit the thrones of christian crusader-states.
2. Nearly every courtier had an european firstname and an arabic surname.
3. Children and fosterlings could inherit the grandmaster throne of the templar-orders.
4. Sometimes strange things would happen like the Templar Order became a vassal of Egypt, and the grandmaster converted to islam.
5. Many crusader-states declared independence from their lieges wich resulted in their fall over and over again.

1. Sometimes muslims would inherit the thrones of christian crusader-states.
2. Nearly every courtier had an european firstname and an arabic surname.
3. Children and fosterlings could inherit the grandmaster throne of the templar-orders.
4. Sometimes strange things would happen like the Templar Order became a vassal of Egypt, and the grandmaster converted to islam.
5. Many crusader-states declared independence from their lieges wich resulted in their fall over and over again.

Very good points, Selerz. Many of these I hope will be improved on in CK2. On #5, I hope there is a Kingdom of Jerusalem to which all western Christian states should give support of one kind or another, as happened more or less historically. In CK1, I stopped bothering with the crusades to retake Jerusalem after a while; every lesser power in Europe seemed to have its own colonial sphere in the Levant and North Africa, which should not be the way to go. Then the Templars, Hospitallers, and KoJ set up their own one-province minor states in rebellion against those who conquered, and a new crusade begins anew. I would be interested in seeing something official on how crusades work (especially in the Levant, but also the northern and western crusades too) and how Crusader States might be set up.

Very good points, Selerz. Many of these I hope will be improved on in CK2. On #5, I hope there is a Kingdom of Jerusalem to which all western Christian states should give support of one kind or another, as happened more or less historically. In CK1, I stopped bothering with the crusades to retake Jerusalem after a while; every lesser power in Europe seemed to have its own colonial sphere in the Levant and North Africa, which should not be the way to go. Then the Templars, Hospitallers, and KoJ set up their own one-province minor states in rebellion against those who conquered, and a new crusade begins anew. I would be interested in seeing something official on how crusades work (especially in the Levant, but also the northern and western crusades too) and how Crusader States might be set up.

Well, isn't it possible now to "Be a king in England, but a duke in France"? Then you can still have and recieve the benefits of territories in the Holy Land through Lords under you, while still being a part of a united Kingdom of Jerusalem.

Well, isn't it possible now to "Be a king in England, but a duke in France"? Then you can still have and recieve the benefits of territories in the Holy Land through Lords under you, while still being a part of a united Kingdom of Jerusalem.

Very nice thread, lots of info about anti-popes and heresies, and obviously we know Christians and Pagans/Muslims wont get along all too well

But there's little info on Catholic/Orthodox relations. Is it possible to end this "mega" schism too? If Orthodoxy reigns supreme, would it be able to call Crusades then? If Catholism sudues the Patriach(s) does it gain alot of moral authority or some such? I figured since EU3 had ways to end the schism, it may exist here too

Very nice thread, lots of info about anti-popes and heresies, and obviously we know Christians and Pagans/Muslims wont get along all too well

But there's little info on Catholic/Orthodox relations. Is it possible to end this "mega" schism too? If Orthodoxy reigns supreme, would it be able to call Crusades then? If Catholism sudues the Patriach(s) does it gain alot of moral authority or some such? I figured since EU3 had ways to end the schism, it may exist here too

My friend, this has been one of the most hotly debated issues related to CK2. There are a few threads here as well as another in the Off Topic History to 1419 forum. I basically think that it is a political issue, but then again I tend to be skeptical of giving the papacy too much power (more than a few medieval popes thought that they were Caesars, if not God Incarnate ). Given 400 years of medieval religious history at your disposal, I can think of a few scenarios in which the schism could be worked out.

In CK1, I have simply inherited the Byzantine Empire (Charlemagne and Robert Guiscard both came to this conclusion but neither succeeded in their schemes of course) and over time created an empire stretching from the Atlantic to the River Jordan. That is one approach. Then there is politically dominating the old area of the Roman Empire, and calling a general council like Constantine did at Nicaea or Carlos V would do much later at Trent, in both cases powerful secular lords demanding that the tenets of the faith of their people be set to paper. I think that it would make a nice mod idea, unless the devs have something planned (and they have been silent on the issue thus far). But it should not be out of the question if that is something that modders want in their games.

My friend, this has been one of the most hotly debated issues related to CK2. There are a few threads here as well as another in the Off Topic History to 1419 forum. I basically think that it is a political issue, but then again I tend to be skeptical of giving the papacy too much power (more than a few medieval popes thought that they were Caesars, if not God Incarnate ). Given 400 years of medieval religious history at your disposal, I can think of a few scenarios in which the schism could be worked out.

In CK1, I have simply inherited the Byzantine Empire (Charlemagne and Robert Guiscard both came to this conclusion but neither succeeded in their schemes of course) and over time created an empire stretching from the Atlantic to the River Jordan. That is one approach. Then there is politically dominating the old area of the Roman Empire, and calling a general council like Constantine did at Nicaea or Carlos V would do much later at Trent, in both cases powerful secular lords demanding that the tenets of the faith of their people be set to paper. I think that it would make a nice mod idea, unless the devs have something planned (and they have been silent on the issue thus far). But it should not be out of the question if that is something that modders want in their games.

Thanks for the thoughts!

I'm guessing, at the very worse, it will at least be technically possible to conquer and convert every Orthodox province to Catholicism manually. Not the most elegant way to end the Schism, but probably doable?

Do we know if we have the power to order vassals to use missionaries in their domains to convert heretics, or is there a chance such a thing can only be ordered in your demesne, severely limiting the feasibility of mass conversions? (This may be a noob question, as Im a bit of a CK noob)

I'm guessing, at the very worse, it will at least be technically possible to conquer and convert every Orthodox province to Catholicism manually. Not the most elegant way to end the Schism, but probably doable?

Do we know if we have the power to order vassals to use missionaries in their domains to convert heretics, or is there a chance such a thing can only be ordered in your demesne, severely limiting the feasibility of mass conversions? (This may be a noob question, as Im a bit of a CK noob)

Okay, about converting provinces and characters: you can send your spiritual lord (that is, your favorite bishop, the guy in charge of religious affairs) to one province at a time like an EU3 missionary. And you could probably pass laws requiring all titleholders to convert to your faith or lose their titles: so let's say you are the Kingdom of Croatia and you inherit the Kingdom of Serbia. You could pass such a law, but it might cause quite a bit of unrest and you might lose your new kingdom. But I would say that most people would tend to follow the religious identity of their lieges, and lieges would tend to respect the traditions of the various peoples under their vassalage (each kingdom will have separate laws, so expect the dukes of Serbia to demand that their traditions be respected). Immediate religious conformity should not be too much of an issue unless something happens causing forced conversions to be enacted: like the Orthodox population rebels with the help of the Byzantine Empire.

But in mega-events like ending the schism, it might be possible to convert a province immediately by event. I have done it in EU3, modifying protestant reformation mechanics. So say that you bring Orthodox Christians and Catholic Christians into the same fold, it might be possible to create an event changing the religion of every province in your domains with the religious tag "orthodox" and "catholic" to something else, like "christian." But that is a philosophical thing, because if you do that you are saying that the main division was in fact largely political rather than cultural or something else, which is a much simplified view of my stance on the issue: i.e., what separates an Orthodox Christian from a Roman Catholic is whether the mass is held in Latin or Greek and whether religious authorities look to St. Peter's or Hagia Sophia for direction. But rulers did pursue such policies because religion tended to unite the people under their rule together even if language, customs, and laws did not. So in terms of game mechanics it should be possible, but there are members of this forum who would say doing so would be ridiculous.

As for having pagans in Scandinavia, I imagine the real conversion doesn't happen overnight for all the population of the region and quite often baptism doesn't actually suggest that those baptized are going to stick to Christian ways and venerate the crucifix. My uneducated guess (considering some vague remarks on Teutonic and Syrian/Egyptian faring) suggests the span around two hundred years during which you have slow atrophy of the old habits (or a reaction in form of a revolt from representatives of an established religion / conservatives) superceded with superstitious rabble (comet sighted - the end is nigh! and stone the sorceror meanwhile! events). Until finally you get popular piety. (Which might bring you religious fervor, resistance towards missionaries for a generation or two and maybe an increased chance to produce protestants or heresies under certain conditions. Like the level of literacy and education in the region/realm/kingdom.)

Thus imo Orthodoxy would have to fight its way in Ruthenian principalities as much as Catholicism is yet to in Scandinavia to reach this popular piety and loyalty. We see pagan uprisings in Novgorod in 1071, population of North-Eastern Rus is said to be quite hostile to the new religion etc.

So the question is if the game is concerned with the religion of the ruling elite of a certain region only? Does the rest of the population count? And if so, to which extent? Are there any ways to force baptism/suppress superstition/breed and impose puritanism or vice versa promote higher learning and Aristotelian pondering among nameless populace? Affect the frames of mind by certain policies towards certain orders or religious ideas? (And as for people effects in general. Can we see a rioting mob of Constantinople expelling (and effectively forcing embargo) Muslim or Venetian merchants giving CB to the offended? (: )

Will donating lands and giving gifts of gold to the church / building abbeys / decorating cathedrals etc have any effect on the standing of "pious" rulers? (Or at least those earning the "patron of the church" status through such actions.) Other than support of local bishops that is. Maybe popular support/some sort of "prestige" too?

Will Christian kings require comissions and bulls of the Pope to conquer pagans and claim the lands for their own? Will there be any ways to bargain conditions of these commissions? (Hungry Popes used to demand as much as 2/3 of the land to the see afaik. Which was later reduced to 1/3 in case of the Baltic.) For example. Let's say, a Danish king manages to get the "remission of sins" option attached to his certain war/crusade bull. I'd guess that should bring a bit more voluntarees (which he would maybe be able to recruit as cheap specific mercenaries?).

Finally, there were a number of princes and kings who bargained with Popes to legitimize their rule and/or request aid/protection by accepting Catholicism. From different Balkan princes swinging back and forth to the Ruthenian king Danylo of Galicia and Mindaugas. Would love to see options like that. And considering the number of Byzophiles here (and thus quite possibly a lot of powerful EREs in games), Catholic princes of Eastern Europe and Italy should sometimes consider switching to Orthodoxy in return for emperor's support and recognition.

A very thoughtful and inspiring post. Here are my own little comments.

For both Muslims and Christians, the formal conversion was only the first step, in what could take generations. When could peasants be said to be "truly" Christian? By the French Revolution? At the same time, most people could be counted on to consider their personal version of Christianity to be the real thing, or at least as legitimate as any one else's. The Christian Church's claim to universality left a lot of room for local interpretations. Universities and schools might help spread orthodoxy, but it never really reached a consensus. The boundaries between the major faiths were rather clear. Spanish Christians knew what a Jew or Muslim was, even if they themselves could not recite the Lord's Prayer or the Ten Commandments (Sarah T. Nalle has an interesting book addressing this, God in La Mancha). The content of their faith, like their ethnic identification, did not matter so much, but the boundaries are much easier to pick out (so in game terms, there should be less problem between say Catholics and Orthodox Christians than between either group and Muslims or Jews or Pagans, and moving from one Christian affiliation to another should be more a political issue, just as people sharing a cultural group should get along better than those outside of their cultural group as in EU3: i.e., Catalans, Occitains, and Provencals will find more in common than the members of either group would with a Frank or Low German--okay, just throwing out this idea, it's still debatable I know).

Nobles also retained their own particular ideas about God and how the universe worked; in some cases, people kept the old gods alive (even in a diminutive form; e.g., "the wee folk") in case the new ones did not prove adequate to their immediate needs. So I think that there needs to be a sort of measure of "religious flexibility" vs. "religious stringency," to sort out how much orthodoxy is being pushed, which could be related to the religion's moral authority and any ongoing reform movements. A policy of religious flexibility would require of the people regular church attendance, the paying of tithes, etc. while allowing a lot of room for non-Christian practices to exist quietly. A stringent religious policy would on the other hand put a lot of pressure on getting the kingdom in line with the religion's central authorities, in Catholic countries following papal bulls to the letter, enforcing clerical celibacy, strengthening the Inquisition. Heresy would be more readily apparent in countries with stringent religious policies, as an added bonus (or not).

Crusades were generally practiced informally by local leaders who had non-Christian neighbors. But if he wanted outside help, then it would help to have a papal crusade. For example, in Iberia war between Christians and Muslims was pretty constant if low in intensity between the eighth and eleventh centuries. At the end of the XI century, both Christian and Muslim rulers ramped up the religious content of their violence, with the pope actually making participation in the Iberian Reconquista equivalent in grace to going to the Holy Land, with the effect that many Frenchmen crossed the Pyrenees, and a cadet line of the House of Burgundy came to rule Castille, Leon, and Portugal.

In game terms, I agree that you should be able to get low-cost mercenaries bands of Crusaders to spawn in your capital, seeking glory and the forgiveness of their sins. Rulers should have ample opportunity to show their piety by commissioning religious architecture and artwork and move between the flavors of their own religion when it suits them, with marriage or vassalage a means of doing so: so, for example, the Normans of Sicily were wedged between the HRE and the ERE, so I could imagine Robert Guiscard making a decision on the matter. Historically, the King of Croatia appealed to Rome to counterbalance the ERE's aggression in his direction.

Why would you ever want to do that ? It might be my personal oppinion, but i would go the other way around. At least in CK the pope was pretty much self-proclaimed god and bully. I quite often found myself marrying with orthodox and converting.

Well, you have to remember that being part of a religion is more than just about spirituality for sovereigns. It's also about politics. You can leave Catholicism because you like Orthodoxy better, but your vassals may not see things the same way you do. Indeed, perhaps the Pope sends out an edict telling all of your vassals that they are released from their oaths to you and whoever takes you down shall be richly rewarded, if not in this life then in the next. It doesn't seem like such a good idea now, does it? You have to remember that a lot of Catholic lords didn't submit to Papal authority because they were overly pious, but rather because they were afraid of the consequences if they didn't.